@mld-woody said:

Oh cal, you poor child. Someone said your painting looked bad so you brought back a kids drawing where you colored outside of the lines and acted like you had a masterpiece. You're a 1st grader trying to argue with college students. It's sad. 

Your complete inability to address the previous post is indication of that. Once again you've been proven objectively wrong so you start throwing shit everywhere and acting like you've won. It's not even that fun anymore to prove you wrong. You've, somehow, become dumber. 

your retorts have no basis, just blathering to try to make someone not think you are a miserable weakling bird with no smarts.

not working, birdie.

@calfoxwc said:

you are such a fool bird.

you are arrogant and wrong about pretty much every subject.

I have been RIGHT about man made goober warning. Is al gore your new nanny?

Your authoritative source is....POLITIFACT?

oh my, LOL.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now

10 times 'experts' predicted the world would end by now

*******************************************

https://winteryknight.com › 2018 › 10 › 19 › fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-is-politifact-reliable-or-biased

Fact-checking the fact-checkers: is Politifact reliable or biased?

On Tuesday, Politifact, which purports to be a neutral fact-checking website but in fact leans heavily to the left, got caught protecting a member of the Democratic Party: Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Oh cal, you poor child. 

Someone said your painting looked bad so you brought back a kids drawing where you colored outside of the lines and acted like you had a masterpiece. 

You're a 1st grader trying to argue with college students. It's sad. 

Your complete inability to address the previous post is indication of that. 

Once again you've been proven objectively wrong so you start throwing shit everywhere and acting like you've won. 

It's not even that fun anymore to prove you wrong. You've, somehow, become dumber. 

@mld-woody said:

If there's one thing you've been consistently wrong about for a decade it's climate change. This accusation has been proven incorrect multiple times. Not only is that not what the difference from the raw data shows, but that's not why data is adjusted. Just an ounce of common sense and scientific literacy could tell you why data might need adjusted.

But unfortunately your dementia primed brain has politicized everything, including science, and you blindly follow whatever you're told to. You exist to hold the world and our country back. It's a shame. 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/noaa-does-not-fraudulently-adjust-data-to-create-the-illusion-of-a-global-warming-trend-investors/

you are such a fool bird.

you are arrogant and wrong about pretty much every subject.

I have been RIGHT about man made goober warning. Is al gore your new nanny?

Your authoritative source is....POLITIFACT?

oh my, LOL.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now

10 times 'experts' predicted the world would end by now

*******************************************

https://winteryknight.com › 2018 › 10 › 19 › fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-is-politifact-reliable-or-biased

Fact-checking the fact-checkers: is Politifact reliable or biased?

On Tuesday, Politifact, which purports to be a neutral fact-checking website but in fact leans heavily to the left, got caught protecting a member of the Democratic Party: Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

@mld-woody said:

You exist to hold the world and our country back. It's a shame. 

LMAO!  You should get to work sonny!   No wonder business owners have most of their shit made in China/Vietnam etc.  Lazy fucks like you are the work force!

@calfoxwc said:

oh, yes, let's let the UN "peer review"
 

that study......

https://www.investors.com › politics › editorials › the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect...

If there's one thing you've been consistently wrong about for a decade it's climate change. This accusation has been proven incorrect multiple times. Not only is that not what the difference from the raw data shows, but that's not why data is adjusted. Just an ounce of common sense and scientific literacy could tell you why data might need adjusted.

But unfortunately your dementia primed brain has politicized everything, including science, and you blindly follow whatever you're told to. You exist to hold the world and our country back. It's a shame. 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/noaa-does-not-fraudulently-adjust-data-to-create-the-illusion-of-a-global-warming-trend-investors/

that study......

https://www.investors.com › politics › editorials › the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect...

@fy56 said:

 Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to respond to Cal with the same old rhetoric.

Here is a pretty in-depth analysis of ivermectin, far too lengthy for me to take the time to understand.  American Journal of Therapeutics doesn't appear to be some sort of "right wing leaning" publication from what I gathered during my brief research.

What I did understand was the final conclusion....

Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infectio... : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)

That's an analysis of other studies, not a clinical trial in itself 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/

Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study.

"Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims. 

He added: "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result. It’s only the smaller, lower-quality trials that have been positive. This is a good indication that the drug probably doesn’t work."

@mld-woody said:

The British Ivermectin Recommendation Group recommended ivermectin? That's some groundbreaking stuff Cal

You also gotta love how you and others here can ignore 99% of scientists, experts, academics, studies, etc. Claim everyone involved is a liberal, paid off, whatever. But then you get one random group of a dozen scientists (sometimes "scientists"), usually with very clear bias, and then you give a shit about science and start beating your chest in victory. 

Basic scientific literacy (and statistics) is severely lacking in this country. And politics mixing with science doesn't help

 Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to respond to Cal with the same old rhetoric.

Here is a pretty in-depth analysis of ivermectin, far too lengthy for me to take the time to understand.  American Journal of Therapeutics doesn't appear to be some sort of "right wing leaning" publication from what I gathered during my brief research.

What I did understand was the final conclusion....

Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infectio... : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)

You also gotta love how you and others here can ignore 99% of scientists, experts, academics, studies, etc. Claim everyone involved is a liberal, paid off, whatever. But then you get one random group of a dozen scientists (sometimes "scientists"), usually with very clear bias, and then you give a shit about science and start beating your chest in victory. 

Basic scientific literacy (and statistics) is severely lacking in this country. And politics mixing with science doesn't help